DU was bad enough, but reports filtering out of Baghdad suggest US forces used a new type of weapon to capture the city. This is the real story behind the fall of Baghdad and it truly is the stuff of nightmares

Research into particle physics is revealing a world full of almost magical qualities. Could it be that this mysterious, puzzling world is in fact the world of the spirit – the spiritual world that saints and mystics throughout history have sought to explo

In Andernach about 50,000 prisoners of all ages were held in an open field surrounded by barbed wire. The men I guarded had no shelter and no blankets; many had no coats. They slept in the mud, wet and cold, with inadequate slit trenches for excrement.

Jack Bernstein was a rarity, an American Zionist who ‘returned’ to Israel, not for a holiday but to live and die in Israel building a Jewish nation. What makes him almost one of a kind, however, was his ability to see through the sham of Zionism

However, far from supporting military action in response to Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons the Western public has remained largely unconvinced. Maybe having learned from the fiasco surrounding Saddam Hussein’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, recentsurveys indicate that the majority of Americans are opposed to military intervention in Syria.

The British are similarly unenthusiastic. In a surprising development on Thursday night the British parliament rejected a motion authorising the use of force against Syria.

So reports about Assad’s use of chemical weapons obviously aren’t having the desired effect, at least as far as the powers that be are concerned. For far from being motivated to call for action against Assad, the Western public are responding with cynicism and in some cases outright scepticism.

The fallout from Saddam’s mythical WMDs remains clear and many MPs now appear unconvinced by arguments for the use of force.

As are many of the public.

So how are the powers that be to convince an increasingly sceptical public that something must be done? Especially when claims about Syria’s use of chemical weapons hasn’t entirely convinced them?

Cue the BBC.

While British MPs were still in heated debate over the issue on Thursday night the BBC broadcast a preliminary news report — and I call it that advisedly — over a fresh atrocity committed by the Syrian government.

It was almost as if the BBC wanted to sway those still unconvinced by claims of Assad’s use of chemical weapons attacks. Instead of “chemical weapons” though the Syrians have now allegedly resorted to the use of a “napalm-like” substance.

Before readers demand that “something must be done”, a little background on BBC reporter Ian Pannell.

So how did a BBC reporter ride with members of a known Al Qaeda affiliate through the streets of a city they held, if only briefly? The BBC claims Ian Pannell and his cameraman Darren Conway were “trapped by the fighting” in Alleppo. Fortuitously it seems, as Pannell and his cameraman went onto to win an award for front-line reporting in recognition of their efforts.

However, this ignores the fact that Western intelligence has had known links with al Qaeda from the start, despite their ostensibly being at odds. Is this what really allowed Ian Pannall to ride with them through the captured city of Alleppo?

Did British intelligence introduce Pannell to the Al Qaeda affiliate in the hope of obtaining more favourable coverage of their proxies than they had hitherto received? Did the BBC jump at the opportunity of obtaining some front line footage, from the (Western -backed) opposition side of the conflict?

If so Pannell would be the obvious man for the job. Earlier this year hereported on Syrian children who had been “forced to live underground to escape the conflict”. While in May, working with the Western-backed ‘Syrian opposition’ he gathered evidence of massacres carried out by government forces in Western Syria.

So more than being a BBC reporter, Ian Pannell may be the intelligence services point man for media coverage in Syria. Meaning nothing he says or reports on about the conflict should be trusted.

Interviewed in 2009, the man who went on to become ‘Jihadi John’ condemned 9/11 and 7/7 as “wrong”. However the fact that he didn’t mention false flags suggests he’s either a dupe, a dummy or a double agent